What are the facts? Please keep an open mind and read the article first before casting your vote.

While there is certainly proof that mutations do occur in nature; There is absolutely no real evidence to support the theory of evolution at this time (for over the past 150 years of "Dino-digging"). Including the sedimentary column.

18

26%

There probably is evidence to support this theory, yet scientist are at a loss to explain it appropriately.

18

26%

Scientist are great at making shit up when they have no evidence to prove something that is false to begin with.

10

14%

I believe in Santa. He's a real person that lives all the way deep at the north pole and brings me presents every year. The presents prove that he's real. I also leave him milk and cookies to snack on and while I don't ever see him, I just know with all my heart, that he is the one who eats all the cookies and milk. Or, I wish I had a dogasaur like Dino.

crispybits wrote:Player has already covered it in detail, but I just ave to say that I find the irony delicious that someone who claims that so much is a hoax would use Nessie, possibly the most hoaxed story on the planet, as evidence for their case

I feel I should apologise for this. Nessie is only the third most hoaxed story on the planet, behind bigfoot and aliens...

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Lootifer wrote:I almost want to put on a "creationist" hat and try and argue for Viceroys point because he is doing such a spectactularly shit job of it....

Almost.

Yeah, he is sounding more and more like just an idiot, not someone who actually believes what he is saying. Even lionz did a better job than him... and Lionz mostly just wanted to post pictures and ask more questions.

EXCEPT.. make no mistake, there are plenty of Americans who believe things very much like what Viceroy is putting forth, and their numbers are growing, not shrinking. PLUS.. they tend to vote.

Indeedy - and to boot...

(I'm resorting to mostly image based posts as it makes it easier on them to speak in their language, after all why read a bunch of complicated stuff that actually explains everything when you can have pictures right?)

LOL... well, not quite. Sadly, a lot of creationists are actually intelligent, but they have been carefully taught that science is wrong.

If, from the time of age 4-5 to you get into college, ALL you hear is stuff put out by the Institute for Creationist Studies, including what they say about evolution, then that becomes your world view.

PLAYER57832 wrote:LOL... well, not quite. Sadly, a lot of creationists are actually intelligent, but they have been carefully taught that science is wrong.

If, from the time of age 4-5 to you get into college, ALL you hear is stuff put out by the Institute for Creationist Studies, including what they say about evolution, then that becomes your world view.

If otherwise intelligent people are being brainwashed on this scale what are the implications for free will?

PLAYER57832 wrote:LOL... well, not quite. Sadly, a lot of creationists are actually intelligent, but they have been carefully taught that science is wrong.

If, from the time of age 4-5 to you get into college, ALL you hear is stuff put out by the Institute for Creationist Studies, including what they say about evolution, then that becomes your world view.

If otherwise intelligent people are being brainwashed on this scale what are the implications for free will?

Its not "brainwashing" per se. They are thinking human beings. It is really no different from people who grew up in the 1400's who often thought the world was flat... they just did not have evidence to the contrary and it really did not matter much to their daily lives.

And.. the implication is that the internet, absent any check on credibility, is the most dangerous invention of all time.

PLAYER57832 wrote:LOL... well, not quite. Sadly, a lot of creationists are actually intelligent, but they have been carefully taught that science is wrong.

If, from the time of age 4-5 to you get into college, ALL you hear is stuff put out by the Institute for Creationist Studies, including what they say about evolution, then that becomes your world view.

If otherwise intelligent people are being brainwashed on this scale what are the implications for free will?

Its not "brainwashing" per se. They are thinking human beings. It is really no different from people who grew up in the 1400's who often thought the world was flat... they just did not have evidence to the contrary and it really did not matter much to their daily lives.

And.. the implication is that the internet, absent any check on credibility, is the most dangerous invention of all time.

Interesting,I agree the internet can be dangerous especially to world views that cannot stand up to close scrutiny like creationism.Some like Thunderf00t think the internet is where religions come to die..it's food for thought at least.

PLAYER57832 wrote:LOL... well, not quite. Sadly, a lot of creationists are actually intelligent, but they have been carefully taught that science is wrong.

If, from the time of age 4-5 to you get into college, ALL you hear is stuff put out by the Institute for Creationist Studies, including what they say about evolution, then that becomes your world view.

If otherwise intelligent people are being brainwashed on this scale what are the implications for free will?

Its not "brainwashing" per se. They are thinking human beings. It is really no different from people who grew up in the 1400's who often thought the world was flat... they just did not have evidence to the contrary and it really did not matter much to their daily lives.

And.. the implication is that the internet, absent any check on credibility, is the most dangerous invention of all time.

Interesting,I agree the internet can be dangerous especially to world views that cannot stand up to close scrutiny like creationism.Some like Thunderf00t think the internet is where religions come to die..it's food for thought at least.

No, because no one is required to do more than check into the links of people who think just like them. Google searches will even do the "favor" or tailoring results that a person likes, so Viceroy won't find anything by real evolutions for maybe 20 pages or so. And, there are plenty of creationist websites out there that give the illusion of veracity.

Its partly flat out lying... not worrying about verification, and just putting down whatever. Partly, its psychology. You look at hundred cites that say essentially the same thing and you begin to think "hey, this really DOES make sense... why else would all these people agree? It really doesn't matter if they are all using the same skewed source or no source at all, or are utterly misrepresenting sources. (Creation “scientists” like to cite evolution proponents out of context and claim the evolutionary expert really agrees with the creation “scientist”).

This happens in a LOT of fronts, by the way… it is why our political climate is so divisive and why so many people plain refuse to listen to opposition.. they are never, ever forced to even HEAR real opposition. They hear, instead, a bunch of straw man arguments that are put forward to give the illusion of considering the opposition.. pretty much like Viceroy’s claim about living dinosaurs. He could care less how many times we point out that living dinosaurs won’t disprove evolution, he keeps saying it. In his case, I suspect he is just game-playing, but true believers will say that, and basically turn away from the argument and go back to their source which will verify for them that the person to whom they are speaking is just wrong about this and evolution really does depend on things like creatures dying, that mutations must mean loss of information and that any transition fossil is just showing microevolution or is plain faked. We see the same thing in debates over things like minimum wage, socialized medicine, even pollution impacts.

I forget if it was Dawkins or someone else but I remember watching a debate in which someone said that they really didn't like the way Google and Amazon and their ilk do the "If you liked this... you might also like this" or tailored searches kind of thing. They said that what these sites should do is suggest things that are massively different to the things you've previously clicked on in order to give you fresh perspectives and new experiences as often as possible. I have to say I agree.

Also, it might surprise Viceroy and some others to learn that I have looked into creationism independently of the discussions I've had on here - not because I ever expected to believe it or anything like that, but because if I'm going to argue against it then first I have to understand it properly. I have to be able to competently answer questions based on what creationist views say about various different issues. Actually, maybe that deserves a little repitition....

If I'm going to argue against it then first I have to understand it properly. I have to be able to competently answer questions based on what creationist views say about various different issues.

If I'm going to argue against it then first I have to understand it properly. I have to be able to competently answer questions based on what creationist views say about various different issues.

If I'm going to argue against it then first I have to understand it properly. I have to be able to competently answer questions based on what creationist views say about various different issues.

If I'm going to argue against it then first I have to understand it properly. I have to be able to competently answer questions based on what creationist views say about various different issues.

Yeah, that's why I speant a good part of 2 years reading essentially everything the Institute for Creation Research put out.

And... why I grew from tolerant to plain outright angry. Despite all claims, don't believe for a SECOND that religion is really behind all this. Sure, many players are "true believers" of Christianity, but the backers and originators... are either solely extremely sloppy and very stupid scientists or they are flat out liars and decievers.

One cannot truly follow Christ AND be a constant purveyor of falsehood. mistakes, erors, sure. We are human, and to be human is to err. However, so many errors that are so systematic and careful manner that they simply have to be intentional ... no way!

In some of our CLE seminars, I show pictures of large stones with drawings carved into them called "Ica Stones." Originally collected by a man named Dr. Javier Cabrera, these Ica Stones portray clear and detailed dinosaurs, as well as complex medical surgery, and other devices such as telescopes and magnifying glasses.

To take an absolute stance that they are all real or all fake would not be wise because there are some fakes out there, but vice versa, just because some fakes and frauds have been made, doesn't mean the real ones are discredited. However, there are many evolutionists that take the position that they are all fakes and frauds because one of these stones being real would disrupt the entire evolution religion, and that is a scary thought for many people who scoff at the Bible.

There are many articles and documentaries made that have, in their own words, "proven" these Ica Stones to be fakes,but the whole truth is not told. [Viceroy63: if something is a half truth, then it is a whole "LIE!"] Most of these shows and documents are simply not well-researched because there is a presuppositional bias that wants to prove them fraudulent. For example, a man by the name of Philip Coppens wrote an article on his website that attempts to squelch any credibility to the Ica Stones, but the extent of his research is seen in his labeling of Dr. Cabrera's father:

Dr. Cabrera's father's name is Dom Pedro. This may not seem that important, but I say this to emphasize the lack of research that is being done, and this is but one of many such mistakes in articles written on the subject of the Ica Stones. [Viceroy63: To not really look into a subject and then post it as truth or self evident, is a "LIE!"]

[Note:]For a fraud to carry on from one generation to the next is a very Mayor undertaking for a small town community where every knows your business even before God Himself knows it. I know this because I live in a small town. This is truly an elaborate hoax??? -Viceroy63

Those that say all the Ica Stones are fake have to find a way around the scientific and archeological evidence. For example, these stones were first discovered and reported by the Spanish in 1535.

"Father Simon, a Jesuit missionary, accompanied Pizarro along the Peruvian coast and recorded his amazement upon viewing the stones. In 1562, Spanish explorers sent some of the stones back to Spain."

[Note:]Ah yes, 1562; Of course! That was the year that the "Dentist Drill" was invented??? -Viceroy63

Are we to believe that 500 years ago someone, living in South America, was carving thousands of these stones, just to fool the evolutionists? However, they must believe such things in order to reconcile their theory with the evidence.

[Note]Man, are those evolutionist smart. Even 500 years ago, they were already plotting the debunking of these Ica stones as fackes! -Viceroy63

In 1967, Dr. Cabrera picked 33 stones out of his collection and sent them to Maurico Hochshild Mining Company in Lima, Peru to be examined for age, and test to see if they had been recently deposited by a grave-robber who was carving them just to make extra money. Eric Wolf, geologist who worked at the MHMC laboratory sent back his signed analysis which read:

"The stones are covered with a fine patina of natural oxidation which also covers the grooves, by which age should be able to be deduced..."

Erich von Daniken analyzed these stones on a microscopic level, and found the following:

"Right angled clean scratches showed on the new stone under the microscope, whereas microorganisms could be seen in the grooves of Cabrera's stones under a fine glaze... that was the tiny major difference between genuine and false stones."

Though shows, like NOVA, will attempt to convince an audience that the stones' cuts have been made recently, F.G. Hawley, an experienced chemist and archaeologist, said:

"Many [artifacts] in dry western country show little or no patina after seven or eight hundred years."

[Note]How Shocking that LIES would be spread on the airwaves influencing the minds and thoughts of our little children to believe in a LIE! -Viceroy63

Under microscopic analysis, we can see that the real Ica Stones can be verified. Yet, commonly, evolutionists will still attack the authenticity of the Ica Stones without the evidence, and commonly I find they do not provide any references to what they are talking about.

Another common evidence used against the Ica Stones is the farmer Uchuya, who was said to be making the stones and selling them to tourists. However, before we analyze this story, let's assume it to be true for the moment.

If it is true that he is making some stones and selling them, does that account for the stones found 500 years ago? Do his fake stones account for all the Ica Stones discovered over the past few decades? Using this admission of forgery does not disprove the Ica Stones altogether.

This is about the same as someone taking a picture of a stick in the water, claiming it as a picture of the Lochness monster, and then when it is proven fraudulent, the evolutionists will jump on it and say that all accounts are disproven because one person lied. (This is also called a "false dilemma" logical fallacy, claiming they're either all real or all fake.) This emphasis on forgeries, without considering all the evidence, is an immature childish tactic used to persuade an audience, not a method used by researchers seeking the truth.

In addition, Dr. Cabrera alone had over 11,000 stones in his collection, so where is the gigantic crater that would be required to have dug up that many stones? And how could these two people have done all this by themselves without anyone noticing? Hamilton Forman, archaeologist researching the Ica Stones, said:

"If one family did this, they must have had an army of elves helping them."

A Peruvian jail sentence is almost the same as an American death sentence. They don't feed you. They don't cloth you. They don't help you in any way. If your family does not come to give you food and assistance, you will die in a Peruvian jail. Selling Peruvian treasures without government authorization is against the law, so when police officers brought in Irma and Basilio, both said they make the stones and sell them, because if the two confessed to digging up the stones and selling them, they would be immediately thrown in Peruvian jail. [Viceroy63: Sure they did! That makes perfect sense when you put it like that??? ]

Even Philip Coppens, who writes against the authenticity of the Ica Stones, wrote:

"When von Däniken visited the farmer in 1973, Uschuya confirmed to him that he had faked the stones; but later on, in an interview with the German journalist Andreas Fischer, Uschuya claimed the opposite. They were genuine, he insisted, and he admitted to a hoax to [u][b]avoid imprisonment."

[Note:]Oh, Come on People; Does any reasonably intelligent person really believe that any police, any where on the planet, would try to coerce a confession from a suspect? Ha, ha, ha, Get real??? -Viceroy63

There is still a lot to be learned by the Ica Stones, but few people are willing to pay for the research because, after all, these stones completely destroy the general theory of evolution.

Who would want to pay for research that destroys the only presupposition evolutionists have to help them reject true Biblical history?

If the skeptics would do a little research, they wouldn't have to be so skeptical.

Man, that is some pretty use of colour! The juxtaposition of the red lines and the blue lines is absolutely brilliant! You have a great career as an artist ahead of you!

I would add to Universalchiro's statement that the Geological Sedimentary Column is NOT Science fact but presented as truth that Evolution of life did happen on this planet when in fact it is only proof that heavier sediments drop faster than lighter sediments in a world wide flood like situation. That is all that it proves. Why Scientist and Teachers continue to lie to us and to small school children (innocent trusting minds) must be out of pride and unwilling to say that they are wrong. Or probably for fear of losing their employments if they did teach the truth, as has happened repeatedly when Teachers do teach the truth to children, they simply get fired.

The fact is that the Geo. Column only exist in text books and not in real life. If the sedimentary Column was in fact real it would reach down 150 miles into the earth. Also for some reason, you can't find some layers in some parts of the world where they do appear in others??? What happened there for those millions of years? In some columns certain creatures are found in a certain layer while in other columns in other parts of the world, the same creatures are found in completely different layers of those columns. Can anyone explain how that could happen over millions of Years of sediments? No because it's a bullshit lie that they tell us in school.

The fact is that the sedimentary column did not take millions of years to form but happened rather quickly in a world wide flood. That is the only explanation that answer these questions. The G. Column was created by believers of the Bible to explain a world wide flood and then later it was perverted by so called, "men of science" to show how evolution happened when there is really no proof what so ever that evolution of life ever happen on this or any other world what so ever!!!

Check out this quote...

Misconception No. 1.The geologic column was constructed by geologists who, because of the weight of the evidence that they had found, were convinced of the truth of uniformitarian theory and organic evolution.

The Truth:It may sound surprising, but the standard geologic column was devised before 1860 by catastrophists who were creationists.1 Adam Sedgewick, Roderick Murchison, William Coneybeare, and others affirmed that the earth was formed largely by catastrophic processes, and that the earth and life were created. These men stood for careful empirical science and were not compelled to believe evolutionary speculation or side with uniformitarian theory. Although most would be called "progressive creationists" in today's terminology, they would not be pleased to see all the evolutionary baggage that has been loaded onto their classification of strata.http://www.ukapologetics.net/08/geologiccolumn.htm

Last edited by Viceroy63 on Tue May 28, 2013 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Viceroy63 wrote: That is all that it proves. Why Scientist and Teachers continue to lie to us and to small school children (innocent trusting minds) must be out of pride and unwilling to say that they are wrong. Or probably for fear of losing their employments if they did teach the truth, as has happened repeatedly when Teachers do teach the truth to children, they simply get fired.

It has long been factually known thatMad Scientists have been corrupting our innocent youth for generations.

Fear of losing gainful employment is surely one of the many driving means behind this troublesome continuance of lies. Not mention sheer false pride as well.

But remember, thatMad Scientists aren't the only ones to blame. Teachers play a similarly diabolical and deceiving role in this corruption of our innocent youth.

Truth continues to be obscured by willing participants. We must all remain vigilant defenders of the truth.

According to the theory, the Geological Sedimentary Column represents hundreds of millions of years of earth's history. Some 600 million years in total actually. The Cambrian Explosion is supposedly to have happen some 600 million years ago when according to the theory, life began on the earth. Before then, there is absolutely nothing and it is assumed that single cell organisms existed in the pre-mordial soups of hydrogen/methane rich gas and oceans of our world.

Some how these single cell organisms evolved over millions of years till the Cambrian explosion of new life forms. Of course there is no evidence of the in-between, intermediate species between the single cell organisms and the creatures that suddenly appeared in the Cambrian Explosion or proliferation of new and completely formed life forms??? Yet the Precambrian period is clearly identified in the sedimentary column.

The Cambrian Period lasted for over 100 million years and then those creatures supposedly died out giving way to the next step in the assumed evolutionary steps of life. A good study of the theory of evolution reveals that death is the mechanism that drives evolution onward. Those species more apt to survive produce off-springs that are equally more adaptable to their environment evolving into more highly adaptable creatures better suited for survivable. Or so the theory goes.

The Cambrian period gave rise to creatures fully capable of survival for at the very least 100 millions years before they gave way to the Ordovician Period with their more highly evolved life forms better suited for survivable than the Cambrian creatures were. Those creatures then lived for another 50 million years before giving rise to those creatures of the Silurian Period, and so on and so on and so on until we eventually get to our modern age where the more highly and most advance creatures live at the top or more recent layer of the Sedimentary Column.

This is supposedly why we do not see Trilobites of the Cambrian Period in the next level of the Sedimentary Column known as the Ordovician period which lasted some 55 millions years. They simply were not apt to survival and died off. In fact you never see any of the creatures from the preceding period in the next level after that. And almost hardly ever see any fossilized vegetation in most of the layers, except perhaps for one or two of the periods.

Surprisingly however there are found fossilized trees that actually cut through several layers of the sedimentary column. In other words, these trees must have lived for hundreds of millions of years before being completely buried by hundreds of millions of years of sedimentary deposits??? Or is there another explanation?

In order for anything to be fossilized it has to be immersed in mud or earth. And as far an anyone knows, Trees simply do not live for millions of years as they are gradually buried under the earth by dirt deposits. If that's the case then even today we should see half buried trees from millions of years ago still alive and waiting to be fossilized under the earth eventually. But we don't.

There is one possible explanation but it is not taught in any school or even mentioned. Is it possible that a world wide diluvial flood, buried those trees as the earthly sediments dropped and buried them, the heavier sediments forming the first layers followed by the not so heavier layers of sedimentary sand and then the lighter ones. The sea life that lived at the bottom of the ocean would be the first ones to be buried and fossilized follow by fish and then other classifications of life forms. That's all that the Sedimentary Column is, a classification of life forms and not evolution.

The reptiles could have floated for a while, their dead bodies decomposing until they finally dropped. Mammals are creatures full of all kinds of bacteria and viruses causing the bodies to bloat up and float for ever, finally being the last of the classifications of animals to sink to the newly forming layer of sediments to be fossilized and in the end be compounded in some mythical theory of evolution?

This would definitely explain how trees could cover several layers of sediments in the Geological Strata Column. The official word for the Column is the Geological Sedimentary Column. And if you look up the word "Sediments" it refers to...

Sediments:1. Material that settles to the bottom of a liquid; lees.2. Solid fragments of inorganic or organic material that come from the weathering of rock and are carried and deposited by wind, water, or ice.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Sediments

... So water has to do with Sediment build up. Perhaps a lot of water as in a world wide flood?

An easy experiment to test this hypothesis would be to just get a mammal like a rat and a reptile like a salamander and drop them into a big water bottle and just drown them. What you would see is that the iguana or salamander would drop first every single time. The rat would bloat and float for a very long time before the gases explode and sink the rat to the bottom where the Iguana would be decomposing away.

If you add different kinds of dirt to the water bottle (Sand, dirt, clay, what ever you can find) and then mix it all up like one of those "Christmas snowy globes" you would then see the same formation of sedimentary layers as there are in real life geologic strata. The heavier sediments would sink to the bottom first followed by the next heaviest types of dirt/sand. And if you put enough dirt so that the dead creatures could be buried in those strata and just let it sit for a few years, you would see the petrification process of the bones. It does not take long for something to turn into rock. Certainly not millions of years.

If we were just only talking about one or two trees then I could understand the oddity of the possibility of a great world wide flood being the cause of this "Polystrate Fossils." But we are talking about hundreds if not thousands of trees found like this all over the world and at the same time with the same age range. That makes me wonder, "Hmmmm, World Wide Flood!"

But what really makes me wonder a lot is why is not any of this taught in the schools to those little children? But man, is that theory of evolution and dinosaurs shoved down their throats till they believe it?! Almost like brain washing the innocent little children (minds) and training them, what to think rather than how to think.

Another thing that is hardly mention is that while we do not see any of those trilobites creatures from the Cambrian period in any other layers of sediments, those creatures still exist today. Many of them are referred to as "Living Fossils." But how can that be? Are we not taught in schools that they died out millions of years ago? So how can they still be alive and why don't we see them in any other of the layers especially right there where Man is or where the dinosaurs are? And why don't we see birds in layers before the dinosaurs since we now know for a fact that birds existed before Archeopteryx (bird creature) or any of the dinosaurs. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v17/n1/bird

Which begs the question of how could the dinosaurs evolve into birds if the birds already existed before the dinosaurs? If they teach that lie to children then they simply have no shame at all. yet this is what is being taught as facts to little children and not just a theory. They certainly don't teach the facts of Polystrate fossils in school to little children because even little children can figure out what's a lie. Unless you thoroughly brain washed those young innocent minds into believing that evolution is a true fact of life.

So my question would be if these living fossils have been around for millions of years, why don't we see them in any other sedimentary layer of the column? and why is this not taught in schools? Not even mentioned in any of the text books? Why the conspiracy? Why the lies?

Last edited by Viceroy63 on Wed May 29, 2013 5:51 pm, edited 8 times in total.

Viceroy63 wrote:Then why don't you show me some true evidence that Evolution has definitely and without question has occurred on this planet and that man is the product of evolution? Why don't you explain it to me?

"Without question and undeniable evidence!"

Viceroy, silly, your confusing my role in this topic. I leave that to the others who want to engage you on that sort of level. My role is to evaluate your posts, and then to interpret or respond to them, often using visuals.

Viceroy63 wrote:Then why don't you show me some true evidence that Evolution has definitely and without question has occurred on this planet and that man is the product of evolution? Why don't you explain it to me?

"Without question and undeniable evidence!"

The evidence is undeniable and without question, but there is one catch....it is to reasonable, intelligent, logically people. For the truth will always be questioned, regardless of how obvious the evidence is.

And yes, I realize that is your argument as well. In this case however, we get to be right, and I thank evolution.

Viceroy63 wrote:Then why don't you show me some true evidence that Evolution has definitely and without question has occurred on this planet and that man is the product of evolution? Why don't you explain it to me?

"Without question and undeniable evidence!"

Here's a very small summery. I'm not in the mood to write a long text at the moment:

Evolutionists look at the physiology of different animals(both living and dead) and by putting them in a certain order(according to dating techniques) they see changes over time

Evolutionists also look at DNA pretty much the same way as they look at the physiology, though in genetic analyses they can get more detailed and say these genes here merged over time or split over time, etc.

Evolutionists also look at the inefficiencies and obsolete organs in the physiologies of creatures, for which they make the assumption that they cannot be designed, because no modern engineer would make such mistakes. For this they look at the original purpose they might have had in preceding ancestrial creatures for an explanation as to why those organs might have turned out they are now.

Another common argument is breeding, where you can clearly see how animals and plants change through time, though with animals it gets a bit trickier to go cross-species.

Computersimulations were run where a virtual entity was programmed to duplicate every second and that each entity had x% chance to change(mutate by random) into a different entity with different characteristics. In this test they also created environments and survival requirements for these entities. After a while what they noticed was that these virtual entities began to change and that in the end only the entities that changed for the best according to their environment survived(survival of the fittest).

They also see similarities as to which entity carries which virus(virusses are passed from generation to generation)

etc.

So basically evolution is still a theory, not full proven, but it is widely accepted as the best fitting theory at the moment. Of course some people go too far as to call it fact already, but that's not the case, not in my opinion anyway.

Then why don't you show me some true evidence that Evolution has definitely and without question has occurred on this planet and that man is the product of evolution? Why don't you explain it to me?[/quote]

Those are 3 different questions. Whether we can prove humanity is a product of evolution is a far more difficult question than simply that Evolution happened.

Beyond that, we HAVE presented you with evidence, but you keep ignoring it in favor of unverified or actually disproven articles.

According to the theory, the Geological Sedimentary Column represents hundreds of millions of years of earth's history. Some 600 million years in total actually. The Cambrian Explosion is supposedly to have happen some 600 million years ago when according to the theory, life began on the earth. Before then, there is absolutely nothing and it is assumed that single cell organisms existed in the pre-mordial soups of hydrogen/methane rich gas and oceans of our world.

Some how these single cell organisms evolved over millions of years till the Cambrian explosion of new life forms. Of course there is no evidence of the in-between, intermediate species between the single cell organisms and the creatures that suddenly appeared in the Cambrian Explosion or proliferation of new and completely formed life forms??? Yet the Precambrian period is clearly identified in the sedimentary column.

Stop here. Plain misinformation.

Sedimentary columns ARE used to give relative age, but not in the way asserted above. I, unfortunately have to go to a meeting and can't do the research right now to show you the real data, why the above assumptions are proclomations are just wrong, but you can start with the fact that one single column or piece of information is NOT used, alone as evidence of evolution.

Second, establishing a geologic time frame and establishing evolution are 2 entirely different problems, though related in some ways. The proof of evolution is a series of fossils that are, despite claims to the contrary, truly layered. We don't have complete lines of each and every species, but the idea that this would be required to just prove evolution is wrong. Showing any series that demonstrates that species can and have changed over time is sufficient. That has been done over and over and over.

The Cambrian bit to which you refer was a puzzle, as are some other explosions and deposits. These events helped tell scientists that Darwin's original ideas of gradual, constant change were just wrong.

gotta go, but try looking at the evidence we have ALREADY given you before claiming that none exists.

Viceroy63 wrote:Then why don't you show me some true evidence that Evolution has definitely and without question has occurred on this planet and that man is the product of evolution? Why don't you explain it to me?

"Without question and undeniable evidence!"

Here's a very small summery. I'm not in the mood to write a long text at the moment:

Evolutionists look at the physiology of different animals(both living and dead) and by putting them in a certain order(according to dating techniques) they see changes over time

You mean like with the horse exhibit where the dating are all from the exact same strata and age and they tell us that this is the evolution of the horse over millions and millions of years? The same thing with the human exhibit. only in the case of the human exhibit like so many others, there is a missing link.

waauw wrote:

Evolutionists also look at DNA pretty much the same way as they look at the physiology, though in genetic analyses they can get more detailed and say these genes here merged over time or split over time, etc.

I can also show you how you evolved from a banana just by comparing your genes and those of a banana. I can just as easily draw a conclusion where the banana's gene evolved from yours to become quite possibly the world's most perfect food. Just because things look alike on any level does not make them the same. Both a car and an airplane utilize metal alloys in their construction. But this is not a basis for comparison.

waauw wrote:

Evolutionists also look at the inefficiencies and obsolete organs in the physiologies of creatures, for which they make the assumption that they cannot be designed, because no modern engineer would make such mistakes. For this they look at the original purpose they might have had in preceding ancestrial creatures for an explanation as to why those organs might have turned out they are now.

This is pure speculation. Once it was thought that the tail bones in man are vestigial organs but now we understand that this tail bones actually makes it easier to sit down on the toilet and take a shit. We can not assume the usefulness or uselessness of any organ simply because we don't understand their uses at the time. In the case of creatures "assumed" to be our earlier prototypes, we can not even begin to imagine why those organs may or may not have turned out the way they were or are now. That is all an assumption and not evidence for evolution.

waauw wrote:

Another common argument is breeding, where you can clearly see how animals and plants change through time, though with animals it gets a bit trickier to go cross-species.

No observations have ever been made of any living organism changing over time because no one was there at the time to see a change that would take millions of years to complete. That is why we look to the fossil records for evidence us such changes. But when we look at the fossils, we find no such fine gradual changes happening. Because some organism have some similarities does not mean that they evolved one from the other. The different types of dogs is not evolution, for example. But many gradual changes Such as in the horse exhibit (were it not a hoax) would definitely be the evidence to prove that evolution is real. The horse starts out as a three toed dog sized looking creature with out a tail and ends up a one hoof rather large horse. If that were real then there would be your evidence of one creature evolving into another. But as mention in the Original Post, the best example of evidence for evolution is nothing more then a cleverly conceived hoax.

waauw wrote:

Computersimulations were run where a virtual entity was programmed to duplicate every second and that each entity had x% chance to change(mutate by random) into a different entity with different characteristics. In this test they also created environments and survival requirements for these entities. After a while what they noticed was that these virtual entities began to change and that in the end only the entities that changed for the best according to their environment survived(survival of the fittest).

Any computer simulation can only be done with available data. There is no available data for the millions of years of evolution so all the data in any computers simulation is biased and made up. It's like making up the evidence that proves your point. That is not science; It is fiction. Computer Fiction.

waauw wrote:

They also see similarities as to which entity carries which virus(virusses are passed from generation to generation)

If you are talking about Micro evolution that is a whole different topic and it is not evolution because the germs and viruses continue to be simply germs and viruses and never evolve into a different creature all together. It may be interesting to note that we all have germs and viruses in our bodies all of the time. They all do different jobs. Some even help us to digest foods. Every living creatures has germs and viruses in them that are both helpful and beneficial. This no where even implies evolution. My father had the same e-collie viruses in his stomach that helped him to digest his foods that I have in my stomach the same as your father did before you. And their fathers before them.

waauw wrote:

etc.

So basically evolution is still a theory, not full proven, but it is widely accepted as the best fitting theory at the moment. Of course some people go too far as to call it fact already, but that's not the case, not in my opinion anyway.

Thank you! That is precisely my point. Only it is not just some people but every single text book and every single school and university that teaches evolution, does so on a basis of factual understanding and knowledge. The children grow up believing that it is not merely just a theory but a fact of life like having children or dying or paying your taxes. And adults are constantly reinforce with the idea that this is in fact Science fact and that Creation of man is actually the theory. When it is really the other way around. Or so the evidence would indicate.

The only requirement that a theory needs is that it can not be proven. Otherwise it is a fact. Therefore evolution should not be taught as fact. But it is and that is the problem.

This is pure speculation. Once it was thought that the tail bones in man are vestigial organs but now we understand that this tail bones actually makes it easier to sit down on the toilet and take a shit. ..............

actually, we still do.. think that its part of a former tail. not just so you can sit on a toilet....